Hobby Lobby asks Supreme Court to hear appeal on contraception case

The passive/aggression is mind numbing how the same people who cry "I am
oppressed" whenever religion is spoken in the public sphere (despite
constitutional protection from "abridging the freedom of speech") are
the same exact people who have absolutely NO problem when government is forcing
religious people to do things contrary to their faith (despite constitutional
protections against government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof").
If Hobby Lobby or anyone else does not pay for your abortofacients, there is
NOTHING stopping you from buying them yourself. You are NOT a victim. You are
merely a perpetrator for forcing others to do something that violates their
faith; when, in fact, you are perfectly free and capable of doing it
yourself.

This massive hypocrisy explains why the American left so
completely and totally alienates me: Condescending lectures on tolerance appear
as nothing more than a pathetic joke when they are preached by those who have
never actually exhibited tolerance.

It is one thing to require
religious people to follow basic accounting and tax law; but no logical person
can argue that there is any inherent nexus between operating a business and
providing abortofacients.

A ScientistProvo, UT

Oct. 22, 2013 5:04 p.m.

"What is being sought here is for a business to be allowed the freedom of
their moral compass and the exercise of their religion to not pay for procedures
they consider immoral and against their religious beliefs as dictated by their
God."

Businesses/Corporations do not have a "moral
compass" (just take a look at Wall Street's track record).
Businesses/Corporations do not have "religious beliefs" - unless they
are Churches. And as much as Churches are really just "businesses", that
is the deception that proves the rule.

Corporations are NOT people!

Ultra BobCottonwood Heights, UT

Oct. 22, 2013 4:37 p.m.

Government as the official representative and agent of the people has the right
and the authority to tell business operations how they must operate in the
service to people and in the manner that they treat their employees. In no case
can the business be allowed to operate contrary to civil law.

The
government cannot tell the people of the corporation or the corporation itself
how to spend its own money and who it may support. They can support PETA,
GOP, or any thing else, but they cannot force their morals or beliefs on
employees through the employment contract.

As mentioned before,
business operations don’t have any rights beyond the rights given them by
the people they serve.

Contrariusiermid-state, TN

Oct. 22, 2013 4:24 p.m.

@suki --

Jehovah's Witnesses have a religious prohibition
against blood transfusions. If you were in a car accident, would you be upset to
find out that your insurance didn't pay for any of that blood you would so
desperately need?

Fundamentalist Christian Scientists are against any
medical treatment at all. Would you be upset if your employer refused to offer
any health insurance at all on religious grounds?

sukiyhtakyus, CA

Oct. 22, 2013 2:59 p.m.

Nobody is suggesting that a business should be allowed to interfere and dictate
health procedures for a patient. What is being sought here is for a business to
be allowed the freedom of their moral compass and the exercise of their religion
to not pay for procedures they consider immoral and against their religious
beliefs as dictated by their God. Lets be honest here, birth control pills run
about 4-5 dollars a month and are free at PPH if you are willing to go down and
sign up and if you really want it why wouldn't you? The same with the day
after pill, if you just had no control over your actions and didn't preplan
by getting on the pill or having a condom---whatever---and want that day after
pill, the cost is about 35 dollars and is available OTC or at PP where their
fees are on a sliding scale. The costs are not prohibitive to anyone, so there
really is no need to press for employers to pay. Applying for jobs is also a
search for the perks and extras they offer and the bonus of birth control should
be one of those perks

Casey SeeFLOWER MOUND, TX

Oct. 22, 2013 2:35 p.m.

Let me put my 2 cents in on a couple issues raised. 1st. Single payer. if
their is only one insurance plan for all americans, who establishes the rates
paid. if two low, doctors drop out of providing services and we all suffer when
needing to see a physician. Just ask Canada or Australia about how long people
have to for a hip or knew replacement or ask Taiwan why everyone goes to the
emergency room because there are no doctor offices. if the amount paid is too
high, we bankrupt the system. Also in either case, it will entire some
individuals to commit fraud because it is the government that pays the bills.
Don't agree, check how many doctors have been found guilty of medicare and
medicaid fraud.

forcing businesses to do something against their
corporate ethics, then we businesses that support PETA or other environmental
causes should also be banned from doing so, because not all of their employees
agree with the corporate decisions.

Broadbrushed solutions can be
applied in ways none of us would agree with. Be careful what you ask for.

RanchHere, UT

Oct. 22, 2013 11:34 a.m.

Personally, I hope SCOTUS takes the case and rules against Hobby Lobby. The
owners of a business shouldn't be allowed to force their religious beliefs
onto their employees.

techpubsSioux City, IA

Oct. 22, 2013 10:51 a.m.

Maybe it is time to go back to the idea that employers do not provide Healthcare
Insurance for their employees under a Company Plan. They could just increase
your wages by the amount that they are paying for your coverage and let you
purchase your own. Obviously, you won't get as good of coverage and will
pay more in taxes leaving you less to purchase coverage with but it will
eliminate this type of situation from happening.

Tyler DMeridian, ID

Oct. 22, 2013 9:02 a.m.

Based on past precedents, Hobby Lobby should lose this case 9-0.

But
that will require the leading intellectual on the conservative side, Antonin
Scalia, consistently applying all his past decisions (e.g., Employment Division
v Smith). If he doesn’t it will be entertaining to watch the mental
gymnastics he employs to satisfy is religious conservative friends, and going
that direction he will continue to erode his reputation for consistency and
intellectual honesty.

And since he’s become somewhat of a
grumpy parody of his former self, we should not get our hopes up.

Ultra BobCottonwood Heights, UT

Oct. 22, 2013 8:52 a.m.

Business as an institution is owned and controlled by the society wherein the
business exists. Business operations, when allowed by the society, are
generally owned and operated by private owners.

There are no
rights or freedoms given to business by the Constitution of the United States of
America. The only rights and freedoms that business operations have are those
temporary rights, given by a society at a specific time and place.

In addition to the rules and regulations of the local society, the federal
government places rules and regulations upon business operations in its job of
protecting the American people.

While there is danger from
unscrupulous businessmen to use government to their advantage, the danger to the
American people would be much greater with out the government control. We
should push back against the unscrupulous rules and regulations but we must be
careful to not throw out the baby with the bath water.

HutteriteAmerican Fork, UT

Oct. 22, 2013 8:28 a.m.

It's time to remove employers from making health care decisions for their
staff; time to remove them from the process entirely. Health care is for people,
not corporations. Let's have it delivered to people, paid for by people.
Single payer.

Jewell in the CrownSpanish Fork, UT

Oct. 22, 2013 7:50 a.m.

They're not interfering. They're just saying "We do not want to
pay for certain things. If you want to, you can." Corporations may not be
people, but they are run by people, who are entitled to have "freedom of
religion" and act on them in the running of their business.

IsaacsTMHuntingtown, MD

Oct. 22, 2013 7:41 a.m.

Churches are not "people" and therefore should not have the freedom of
religion to impose on their congregations beliefs that are contrary to their own
beliefs. Right The Scientist?

This religious freedom issue is
huge. We in America do not check our constitutional rights at the door when we
start or run a business. We must push back against big government. Forcing
individuals to run their businesses in a way that violates their freedom of
religion is a huge problem that is accelerating at a very fast pace. The
constitution never guaranteed that we would not be offending each other with our
religious beliefs.

Ultra BobCottonwood Heights, UT

Oct. 22, 2013 7:41 a.m.

America’s greatest danger of failing is from the internal organizations
seeking to control the government for their own selfish reasons. The history of
the world has been that commercial business interests have always controlled
government. In many cases they have been and still are religious
organizations. The true financial giants of the world are religions.

The formation of a single nation, the USA, required a truce of sorts between
the competing religions by prohibition a national religion and prevention of
government interference in religious matters.

The First Amendment
establishes that truce for churches and religions organizations but does not
guarantee freedom of religion for individuals. Thus religious organizations
feel that they have unlimited right to use civil entities to force their belief
upon individuals.

If America is to have freedom of religion for
individuals, there must be freedom from religion for individuals. And civil law
must be trump over religious law.

The ScientistProvo, UT

Oct. 22, 2013 3:08 a.m.

Corporations are NOT "people" and should not have the "freedom of
religion" to impose on employees contrary to the employees' beliefs and
healthcare needs!

UtahCentristSalt Lake City, UT

Oct. 21, 2013 8:33 p.m.

I think it is a terrible precedent to set to allow an employer to interfere,
based on their own religious ideals, in the healthcare decisions that should
purely be between a doctor and a patient.

Should a Jehovah's
Witness CEO be able to make it prohibitively expensive for an employee to
receive a blood transfusion? Or a Jain employer prohibiting the use of
medications that may have gone through animal laboratory testing? Etc...

Besides, there are many legitimate uses that female contraceptive drugs
are prescribed that have nothing to do with preventing conception. My cousin had
ovarian cysts that caused her excruciating pain and "birth control" was
the medicine that relieved her suffering. It would be the height of cruelty if
she were forbidden from affordable care because some distant CEO has an
arbitrary objection to certain kinds of health care.

That decision
should be between the patient and the physician. Full stop.